this is interesting to me cause it's not something I've ever seen as an issue but I've had others bring it up towards me re: antifascism. to me though fascism is so repugnant that it seemed sort of silly to say that antifascism was at all negative, and I feel the same way about civilization and anti- civilization. being against terrible shit feels super positive in my perspective. that aside, pro-life probably couldn't be adopted with it's popular definition in anti-abortion rhetoric.

It depends on the definition of "negative". There is the colloquialism that means something like "pessimistic/unfavourable", but then there's the more technical definition which means that it attacks rather than maps something out—i.e. it is a critique rather than a roadmap. (Being anti-civ is being anti-roads anyway. ;)

Does a "negative" (critical) mindset bring a "negative" (pessimistic) mindset which harbours "negative" (unfavourable—hurtful or harmful—) thoughts? That's an interesting question. It does not seem to be necessarily so, but then again people who use a negative (either meaning) language a lot are statistically less happy than those who do not.

Thus I think this is an interesting subject, and an interesting proposal to express ourselves in terms of what we are for, rather than what we are against. One entails the other, but it may make a difference how we choose to think about it, and how we choose to present it. The reason this forum is called "anti-civ.net", is because it is specifically rooted in the critique of civilisation. But what is the root of the critique? Surely it is Nature, or some such. We agree that civilisation has to go, but do we agree about why it has to go? "Anti-civ" might be a more universal sentiment than "for-nature", or some such, but aren't we all anti-civ because we are for-nature?

I'm not so sure that I'm for this and against that. I think that this sort of approach is closer to the "problem" than anything.

I'm not going to infer as to other peoples meanings & intentions, but personally I'm somewhat skeptical towards using terminology like nature (good) contrasted with civilisation (bad).

Point being that I think it is the processes which we might call civilisation which are problematic. It is not so much a thing in it self, but could perhaps be described as a way of being?

What we call civilisation seems to me one of a myriad of similar possibilities.
It happened to end up with this particular one if you will. To do as often is done when you are against something, seems to be to take some kind of benevolent schema and superimpose that on the situation. Even as a purely negative, as in a critique, there is no qualitative break.

I think that the value-judgement is rather that civilisation is an erroneus way of being in that its one which produces pain. But I also think that it is good to be careful not making civilisation too narrow, or to situate it in this or that and not in some other - whether that be 'nature' or 'hunter/gatherers'.

This, of course, is a rather Zen or Daoist derived interpretation of it all...

I agree with the point you are raising. This binary mode of thinking that permeates Western civilisation is inherently problematic. Unfortunately, pointing out this binary mode of thinking, merely confirms it—as Ingold wrote about.

For my own part, my thoughts are these days circling technological enframing (Ge-stell). Put (too) simply: technology as a mode of human existence, and our inability to recognise how this deeply affects all uncovering and revealing of the world. A technological enframing, or at least our not being mindful of it, seemingly inhibits modes of existence characterised by caring-for and tending-to ways of being-in-the-world.

When I post on an "anti-civ" forum, and search out "anti-civ" writings and people, "anti-civ" is merely a somewhat (though not overly) useful kind of meme. (I concede however that it is becoming less and less useful.) And when I talk about Nature, I do not mean to talk about nature vs. culture, or nature vs. civilisation, or any other tired dichotomy; instead I mean to talk about it as Claudio Campagna and Daniel Guevara did, when they wrote that Nature is «the carcasses of albatrosses with stomachs full of plastic; the fins of sharks in the market and their bodies agonizing underwater; the head of the gorilla on a plate; the rotting elephant without a tusk».

How is it that pointing out the binary confirms it? I’m not familiar with Ingold...

Perhaps it is mostly a binary that I referred to, or that the civilised expresses itself in that way. It was not so much my meaning, sorry if that was unclear.

I thought more in the way that what we refer to as ‘civilised’/'civilisation' is but one face or expression of a more fundamental relation to ourselves and the world. It could have many other, just by removing/altering the terminology or doing this or that doesn’t necessarily change that relation.
Which is why I personally find zen & daoism useful, because it approaches things within this sort of framework. Or why I think that Fukuoka offers much more than say permaculture. But I’m going off on a tangent here……
I know that some of the radical discourse try to approach these questions (alienation, reification etc), but as far as I can tell, this is a rather abstract exercise. It is still the discerning mind trying to do away the discerning mind. I’m not really convinced that is a possibility.

Second point you make I agree with. But I do wonder whether this is due to ability….?

And yes, ant-civ is perhaps more useful than civilisation is bonkers or something like that.

And if we do as you suggest and remove the dichotomy when using ‘nature’, then it certainly paints a grave picture of the ‘self’. But that is perhaps the point...?

(Tue, 02 Oct 2018 16:27:25 +0000, 04:27 PM)Ola Boms Wrote: How is it that pointing out the binary confirms it? I’m not familiar with Ingold...

Logically, "the world is not binary" is a binary statement. "The nature-culture-dichotomy is culture" is a binary state that presumes a negation of culture.

(Tue, 02 Oct 2018 16:27:25 +0000, 04:27 PM)Ola Boms Wrote: I thought more in the way that what we refer to as ‘civilised’/'civilisation' is but one face or expression of a more fundamental relation to ourselves and the world. It could have many other, just by removing/altering the terminology or doing this or that doesn’t necessarily change that relation.
Which is why I personally find zen & daoism useful, because it approaches things within this sort of framework. Or why I think that Fukuoka offers much more than say permaculture. But I’m going off on a tangent here……
I know that some of the radical discourse try to approach these questions (alienation, reification etc), but as far as I can tell, this is a rather abstract exercise. It is still the discerning mind trying to do away the discerning mind. I’m not really convinced that is a possibility.

The language we use shapes the thoughts we think—limits them. Thus I share your observation. I furthermore share your observation regarding alienated critique of alienation and reified critique of reification—although I confess to finding a certain charm to thinking on those things, despite the futility of it.

(Tue, 02 Oct 2018 16:27:25 +0000, 04:27 PM)Ola Boms Wrote: Second point you make I agree with. But I do wonder whether this is due to ability….?

Could you elaborate?

(Tue, 02 Oct 2018 16:27:25 +0000, 04:27 PM)Ola Boms Wrote: And if we do as you suggest and remove the dichotomy when using ‘nature’, then it certainly paints a grave picture of the ‘self’. But that is perhaps the point...?

Insofar as there is a "point", and insofar as you must have one. These are grave times.

God is not in the world, nor is God revealed in the world—God is the actual revelation itself. God is not a technological—technology as enframing, not products, which are merely peripheral—revelation. A technological mode of uncovering obstructs God.

Curious path this took, i do agree so far that in a way, anti-civ does leave more open space for different theories about or against civilization, before during and after, but im still eager to take out the anti.
Words influence thoughts and thoughts words, actions and vice-versa, after many years being tormented in the belly of the beast my mind is now polluted enough, perhaps better is to turn a monk and live in the woods without saying a word.
I can see now this is no simple matter though.